User talk:Woody
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents
|
[edit] Chicago A-Class review
Yes that is correct (as I understand it).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contest dept gongs
Could I ask you to dish them out this month and add a mention to the newsletter please? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a couple more bits. That's all for now, I think. Could you give it a read-through before releasing it please? Many thanks, --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- PS: The builders are still here: running four weeks late on finishing the bathroom! They hope to get it fully operational on Wednesday. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] False 3RR
Please be good enough and stop writing false 3RR warnings. Between 23 July and today I have only 1 time reverted Wikipedia user. All other reverted has been against banned or blocked users and because of that I will in next hour delete you false warning.
If you are interested in my wiki problems you need to look Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss. Bye --Rjecina (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- To tell you truth I am little angry because this user is coming back again and again and again...
- Sorry for not diplomatic answer--Rjecina (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are right about reverts of users Joka and J. A. Comment but in my thinking not about revert of IP 66.217.13x.xxx, but this is another story. I am more interested about today situation. If there is not mistake we can delete edits of banned users puppets without looking 3RR rule ? When I say this I think about situation with "user:Decensi". I am waiting his block on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and in this moment reverting his edits. To tell you truth there is no need to wait blocking because I can call user:Thatcher (or few others administrators which are knowing situation) and blocking him this moment but we are on normal blocking road :) In my thinking my reverts of "user:Decensi" are OK. Your thinking ? :)--Rjecina (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of 3RR warnings
User:Rjecina is deleting 3RR warining messages and has made 3 reverts in articles Jasenovac i Gradiska stara and Thompson (band). Could you please help report his 3RR rule violations. Thanks Decensi (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you:-)
Thanks, Woody:-) VMORO 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clueless newbie after 75,000 edits
Do I have a "move with subpages" tab, or is that an admin tool? I don't know why I am so unable to sort these move messes, but I think it's because admins see a whole different set of tabs than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Beautiful; everything looks good. You're a gem! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question regarding contest department
Hi Woody, I've signed up to participate in the contest department this month, and I am still a little ignorant about several aspects, and was hoping you could answer a question for me? Namely I would like to know when I have completed fixing up an article as best I can, do I request an assessment or wait until the end of the month for someone to assess the article? Thanks, mate. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, and for assessing the article, but now that it has been assessed do I just wait until the end of the month for the points to be tallied before I am entered into the table? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind the wait; at least now I know how things work. Thanks for all the help mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contest
Thanks Woody for looking after the comp...however you appear to have awarded 5 points for some start class articles, which are supposed to be 1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Henry Chadwick
Thanks for looking, I see your point about trying to enlarge the lead, but the existing one does seem to cover most major aspects anyway - the only absence that immediately occurs to me is mentioning more about his writing, particular the books aimed at a non-academic audience. Otherwise I don't see what to add without going into detail which would be better in the body of the article. Any suggestions? David Underdown (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Any chance you could help with Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition
Hello Woody, I was wodnering if you might be able to help with Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition. I wanted to see if there was any help especially with prose and c/e, but would also appreciate any other comments, since I wanted to put it up for FAC once PR is done. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] VC
"merge two paragraphs in the lead, they are associated" - I disagree. One is about the process of presenting the medal; the other is about the monetary value of the medal. How are these associated? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see them both as being tangentially related to money. Having two very short paragraphs in the lead is distracting and breaks up the flow of the prose. As such, it is for an aesthetic issue as much as for an association issue. Frankly, in my opinion, it looks better now from a prose point of view.
Really? Certainly the second is, but how is the first? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Annuity, plus inherent value of VC, they are both about money. The Annuity is related tangentially to the value of the medal, and the annuity is related to who awards the medal. So in that sense, it is a complete paragraph. Victoria Cross for New Zealand follows the same pattern, and it has been dissected at FA. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
On consideration, I think the "problem" is not that there are (were) two paragraphs, but that there are four sentences. I see no relationships between the first and third sentences; you see that the second and third are related. In this, I think we are both right. (The fourth sentence is an extension of the third.) Strangely (to me), when you put the three (four) together, they seem to fit. Good! So, even though it is for different reasons, and we don't agree on the detail of the mechanisms, it seems we agree on the outcome! Again, good! (What was that quote? - Churchill I think - "Two nations divided by a common language"?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Glad that is sorted then, all roads lead to Rome after all. As I said, not that much about close association, more for aesthetics. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas Hines
I went through your comments of Thomas Hines and corrected everything you saw. Thanks for the help. Anything else amiss? I'll try to find out what kind of lieutenant soon.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question
In the event of a csd deletion, can you salt a page, or do you need to go through the xfd process before you can salt? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Gothcha. Learning as a go along here, so input from others is very much welcomed. Thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mr. Woody, hello.
Mr Woody,
I am a new registrant to Wikipedia, and I am interested in writing on the PLA, PLAF, PLAN, and the PAP, as it is my area of expertise due to my former rate during my time in the Navy. If you have any suggestions, or have a direction you'd like to set me on, please send me a message and let me know what to start on.
Unfortunately, I will have to censor a lot of what I know due to clearance issues, and even if I wrote it, I would be unable to verify it, but I should be able to contribute a reasonable amount of info.
Also, there is a message on the List of Destroyer Classes discussion page that absolutely needs to change.
Jaguitar (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bum steer
It seems to me that your suggestion to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in content dispute was a bum steer as they say here. My post there was not addressed at all. People just go to AN/I when the disputes get heated, and they get heated because there is no way to resolve issues of content when admins with "weight" to throw around get involved like Raul654, who goes from his feelings about something, to action, past discussion and mediation, there is little one can do regardless of the issue of sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, well, of course it wasn't in the scope. There was no source used! It was done by a vote. Can't go to AN/I over a vote because that's the "sacred consensus" even if people seem not to understand the place of consensus in article editing. So ultimately half-dozen people in Wikipedia can change history by a vote. Who needs to read anything. Just write what you like, get your mates to put a consensus together, and whacko, a brand new invasion is "born". I mean, bugger it. I had tried to rename an article named for a 90s computer game, and even failed in that. The entire thing is just bent out of shape. You have people pursuing vendetta's, the "pure English" society, the "give em what they want" club, etc. (struck out text)...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- "remedy the situation in a civil manner"? Well, lets see. I spend weeks to prove that the previous title is an invention by a little girl. I rename it to the correct, and cited title as stated in the references used to create the article. Why, oh because that is the only source available for the subject in English. Raul654 then steps in with a declaration that he thinks the title sounds lousy. And how does he go about establishing a "better sounding" title? Why, its the last step on the process you suggest Conduct a survey, although "a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions on a given dispute, it can also easily degenerate into an argument over whether a particular survey is fairly constructed or representative." Obviously due to his vast experience in Wikipedia, Raul654 decided Mediation was not required, and this was confirmed by other participants. Were any other opinions or reasons taken into consideration? How about the one that not one of the "sources" compiled through a keyword search by Biruitorul can be used to reference the article! However, I had not asked anyone to get involved in what should be a discussion rather than a "battle"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Username on ro.wiki
Your request for usurpation in ro.wiki has been solved. Razvan Socol (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 2008 Summer Olympics venues
I think I've worked through most of your concerns. Le comte de monte christo (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] F-35
I've replied and apologized on my talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Murray Maxwell
Thanks for the GA review on the above article. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Krahmer de Bichin
Thanks for rating Carel Frederik Krahmer de Bichin. I think we'll never agree on references, but I am puzzled by your rating on the second criterion (inaccuracies). If you could put me straight on this, I'd be glad to make the necessary corrections.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I rated it "no" on the references because it relies on one source for all the citations. If you could find another one or perhaps two to source them, then it would fly through. In terms of "coverage and accuracy", it was more about the coverage, than the accuracy. I have no qualms about its accuracy. Re-reading it, if you expanded the lead a bit per WP:LEAD, then it should pass the coverage criterion. Add an infobox ({{Infobox Military Person}}) and it should pass B-Class. If you have any more questions or want a re-assessment, then leave another note on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I copied your reaction on this page, or we will go back and forth. I'd like to point out that I actually supplied two sources, as the article on the painting contains a potted bio on Krahmer also, which covers at least the Waterloo part. It is in Dutch, but should it be discounted on that score? I mean it would become awfully difficult to supply sources for bios on "furriners" if only English sources are allowed :-) Thanks for pointing out the infobox, which I didn't know yet, but will start using in future. I have put it on the page, and will use it for other articles also.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- In terms of foreign-language sources, we do have WP:NONENG, so assuming that there are no reliable sources of equal quality, then a foreign language source is perfectly acceptable. I did a few little corrections and I removed the Biography section header: it is pretty self-explanatory that this is a biography. ;) I am still concerned about the sources, I would suggest at least one more is needed, especially given that the main source used here seems to be self-published (home.wanadoo) address isn't an indicator of reliability. As it is though, it is a B-Class article. Woody (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I copied your reaction on this page, or we will go back and forth. I'd like to point out that I actually supplied two sources, as the article on the painting contains a potted bio on Krahmer also, which covers at least the Waterloo part. It is in Dutch, but should it be discounted on that score? I mean it would become awfully difficult to supply sources for bios on "furriners" if only English sources are allowed :-) Thanks for pointing out the infobox, which I didn't know yet, but will start using in future. I have put it on the page, and will use it for other articles also.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Naval blockade
I'm curious what is the correct term to use in describing a naval blockade as a strategy and not an event. Would it be a "blockade of Cadiz" or a "blockade off Cadiz"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:WPAVIATION
I put one of the new tags in the wrong spot. *Smack's forehead* Use the sandox! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Review Request
Hey, Woody, you wouldn't happen to have time for a quick GA-Review of 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, would you? If not, would you know of anyone who would? I'm looking to have it undergo an ACR by the end of the month, so even comments on how to get it to that stage will be of significant help. Thanks! Cam (Chat) 06:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NATO template: a thank you
Thanks for reverting the vandalism of the NATO template. I was about to do it myself but you beat me. Did you ban the vandal permanently? His abuse brutalized so many pages. Blue Danube (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alam el Halfa assessment
Hi, Thanks for your feedback on the Battle of Alam el Halfa article. I've added an introduction as you suggest but I'm not sure of the level of citation required for the lead. The WP:Lead guideline is somewhat unclear on this. Thanks. Lawrencema (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Thomas Duckworth
I was wondering if you can render assistance. For reasons I can't understand, probably during uploading, I'm unable to add the two images of the presentations swords, and the relief medallion at the end in this article as thumb images. When I do, all I see is the caption as a hyperlink. Thank you in advance--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] British Army
If you consider my behaviour in the matter of articles on the Red/Soviet Army to have been unacceptable, maybe you will consider the below as a statement on the British Army from a professional author
I became bogged down when at a advanced stage, when against my better judgement, by the urging of two academics with whom I have had professional contact, I used Wikepedia. In 488 entries relating to the British Army content, and a further 100 general entries (such as weapons) looked at, I had to return to my prime sources to check the validity of my entries. Wikepedia entries sourced, showed well over 1,200 inaccuracies identified, with many further contradicting other entries. One can only come to the conclusion that there is on Wikepedia both the unwitting placement of inaccurate information, or the deliberate placing of misleading information, in some cases given a reputable organisation such as a museum as the source of such information! I find the educational concept, that school teachers throughout the world, encourage their pupils to use Wikepedia as a source for the preperation of school assignments a quite frightening concept. Gordon Angus Mackinlay (The publication is THE BRITISH ARMY AT A MOMENT IN TIME - 1 JULY 2007: A LOOK AT AND FROM IT OF THE MAKEUP OF THE REGULAR AND TERRITORIAL ARMY)
I can only urge a different approach to article editing from one used currently.
If you would like a copy of the book, I can send you a pdf copy if you don't have it already, though you will need to acknowledge that you had received it to Gordon--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
